Being gay is not a sin. but if you think bad about them then its a sin. ooops

The debate "Being gay is not a sin. but if you think bad about them then its a sin. ooops" was started by
Blue_ray on
August 10, 2016, 10:49 pm.
7 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 7 people are on the disagree side.
People are starting to choose their side.
There is a tie in this debate, post your arguments, call some reinforcements and break this tie.

If we agree that they deserve all the same rights, privileges and responsibilities that come with marriage, I don't understand how the word used makes a difference. If they had created a new word, all the laws about it would have to be rewritten to include it. By simply including same sex marriage under the same word, there is no ambiguity about whether they are equal. Language grows and evolves with society so, even had same sex marriage not been acceptable historically, there is no reason it shouldn't be now.

if you want to go all the way back I can quote Genesis 1 with God creating adam and eve, and the first marraige. then we follow marraige though the Jewish tradition until Christianity into modern times.

if course you don't believe in that agnostic and all so going back won't solve anything.

The fact that you are completely missing is that marriage has existed in many forms for thousands of years and in the majority of them, until Christianity became dominant, homosexuality was not am issue. Marriage predates Christianity. If you want to go further back, Christianity changed the definition to make it solely man and woman, and shouldn't have. You picked your starting definition at a point in history convenient for your religious views, but it just as easy for anyone else to pick a time previous to that and your argument is moot.

Though this ruling may be justified, it isnt a solution since we must recognize homosexual unions; there is no legitimate reason why heterosexuals should be recognized and not them.

Please understand that i know this issue is over; I am just trying to present a logic basis for my standings. I am trying to show that I am not a bigoted homosexual hater, and that there is some reasonable base to my stance. I feel people who share this position are typically generalized and prone to being ignored--to simply be called a homophobe without question. I recognize gays should be represented, but not by assaulting what marriage is. And certainly not by the will of the SCOTUS disagreeing with policy and rewriting to suit their agendas.

But calling it marriage and not allowing gays to enter into it isnt revoking anything. Nobody is being harmed nor oppressed. It was institutionalized marriage; if you wanted to get married you went through the government (or religious, but still government aspects). Now there comes a problem with gays not being recognized as a union. But they couldn't get married because it wasnt a man and a woman pursing marriage, not because of their sexual orientation.

Now the issue becomes: how do we allow homosexuals to have an equal position before the eyes of government. Stupidly people passed civil unions which were horribly developed and created further issues. The best alternative was to abandon marriage, and create a unilateral union. This did not happen. Another possible alternative would be to create another equal institution; however, the purpose of this new institution would be to provide a union for those meeting the requirements of a homosexual union. Not a discriminatory policy, but just a black and white obvious difference: they meet different requirements.

You may at this say that is discriminatory; however, a just examination would look at past racial discrimination. Any modern day, civilized individual would agree that blacks are people, and the only distinction between they and whites is the color of their skin and possibly culture (by association). Now if a black person wants to vote and is denied, we must ask why? They are citizens, they are people--what is the distinction? They want only what white men receive, and there is no legitimate difference between the two men of different colors. Therefore, it must be that the black man is discriminated against.

Here is where the case changes: do homosexuals seek an identical station? A homosexual couple seeks marriage. They are denied the marriage. We again must ask why. Homosexuals deserve to love and be recognized as much as hetetosexuals; however they seek marriage and are not male and female. A candid reflection can explain this with the same question as before. Is there a difference between these homosexuals and heterosexuals? They have different sexual orientations, but that should bar them from marriage. However a simple fact remains: they arent seeking marriage. A marriage requires it being between a man and woman, but they seek a homosexual union. They are not being discriminated against because there is a legitimate claim as to why they shouldnt be married.

separate marriage from government institutions and each group can define and call it as they want. I don't disagree with that. however as long as it's a legal term, it must be extended to all people regardless of orientation.

yes, because the Catholic Church decided it was. our lives are no longer ruled by the Catholic Church. marriage can now be whatever society wants it to be. and since the Majority of Americans as well as the supreme Court have decided that includes gay marriage, the debate is already over.

no of course not. but historically there have been same sex marriages. in greece, the Roman republic and empire. in ancient China. gay people have been getting married for thousands of years. it was the domination of the Catholic Church and their dogma that created the "marriage" you are referring to.

you are trying to draw the two together and it doesn't make sense. a marriage of two partners is the norm for many societies. a prohibition against homosexuality is a religious thing. society didn't decide it didn't like homosexuality, religion did. religion forced society to condemn homosexuality. thanks evidence of this is that Romans fully accepted homosexual relationships until Christianity took over

I see our contention then. Government sponsored marriage exists because the heterosexual construct was extrapolated from society. Government didnt make it. Ot adopted it. I think that is wrong. It adopted marriage then perverted it. In my opinion men and women, in the eyes of the government should be subject to general unions.

the genders do differ from what Christianity has pushed as the only acceptable norm. but luckily for all of us we don't live in a theocratic state and one groups religious beliefs are not grounds to suppress a minority.

and if you asked someone in the 1700s they would have said the something similar about a black man being a person. you are holding onto an outdated definition to protect your religious world view even though it do so you have to suppress the rights of a minority and violate what Jesus said.

Because i feel you shouldnt change a definition for an agenda. Marriage was for men and women. It should have been dropped from government and a general union for all couples should have been implemented. That is my only grievance.

No. You look to far into the issue. I believe a gay couple should have every right that heterosexual couple has. Its definitional: i can apply for a 501c3 if i meet proper conditions. Marriage should be the same, even if its ridiculous to continue it at this point. Originally, it was a seamless transition to incorporate it, but now homosexuals want recognition too. They should have equal rights, but it wouldnt be a marriage in the tradition of the words.

when you say you don't have to fight for their right to do their immoral action, does that actively fighting against it and petitioning for it to be illegal by law? cause that's what many Republicans are trying to do.

why don't you make not going to confession a crime while your at it. not getting baptized should be illegal too?

actions that don't harm anyone and are only made immoral by a religious text should not be legislated against under any circumstances.

no one is asking you if they can have a homosexual marriage. that is their right as protected by supreme Court. the debate is over. for most countries it has been over for quite some time.

Jesus said to live every one. he never said anything about homosexuality being wrong. so trying to block them is directly against the wishes of Christ. you are committing a sin by attempting to stop them.

I differ entirely. A christian says marriage is between a man and woman. They also believe homosexuality is a sin. I cant say "go ahead, do it", but i can say i dont believe that is right and i will not participate nor advocate for it. It would be sinful to go after the individuals and not the sin of homosexuality. Im not saying they cant marry perios, but they cant have a homosexual marriage.